DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the After-Final Amendment filed on 05/08/2026 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, independent Claims 1, 18, and 24 have been amended. Further, Claim 4 has been cancelled with Claims 14 and 25 being previously cancelled. New Claim 26 has also been added.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-24, and 26 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/26/2026 and 04/20/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-17 filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Learmonth et al. US 2017/0167919 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Learmonth. For this reason, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see office action below for details.
3. Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, particularly with respect to prior art Kamee being non-analogous art (pgs. 10-17), since Kamee pertains to the medical field. However, based on updated searches, the work of Learmonth is deemed relevant for the following reasons. Learmonth’s teachings pertain to spectral reading for measuring reflected optical spectra from objects. Specifically, the disclosed reader employs synchronized LED sources (i.e., a “plurality of light sources”) that can be switched on simultaneously for illuminating said objects (e.g. ¶0066 and ¶0070), i.e. “operable to simultaneously switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources”. Further, Learmonth also discloses a light combiner (e.g. ¶0070) that is understood to mean combining the outputs of the synchronized light emissions into a single output. Learmonth also discloses a combined light source which combines light from one source with light from another source via a beamsplitter (e.g. ¶0072), i.e. “to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources”. Similar to the Instant Application, the publication classification of Learmonth’s work also includes classification G01J3 relating to the field of spectrometry; hence, for all of these reasons, Learmonth is deemed analogous art. Unlike Zhang, the objects being read/analyzed in Learmonth are not objects found in a vehicle (e.g. fig. 8), however, the techniques employed, particularly those related to the lighting, are used to conduct the multispectral measurements for detecting the object(s). Since Claims 1, 18, and 24 do not explicitly disclose the location of the monitoring device used to identify a material in the vehicle cabin and at least a part of a human (e.g. tissue), the examiner respectfully submits the work of Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the instant claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). However, if these claims were to explicitly recite the subject matter of new claim 26, the art of record would be overcome. Please see office action below for details.
4. Also noteworthy is the work of Kurtoglu et al. CA-3125937-A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Kurtoglu, which discloses object recognition by measuring captured radiance data of a scene when one or more illuminants of different wavelengths are active (e.g. pg. 17), i.e. are both on at the same time. Kurtoglu also refers to spectral imaging throughout the disclosure (e.g. 16-17).
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. After further consideration and to help move the instant application forward, it is recommended that claims 1, 18, and 24 incorporate the allowable subject matter of Claims 6-12, 17, 21-23, or 26. For e.g., Claim 26 recites “the monitoring system is arranged in the motor vehicle to identify objects in the passenger cabin.” Although Zhang allows for identifying objects in the passenger cabin, Zhang’s monitoring device is external to said vehicle (e.g. fig. 1). With this, the art of record would be overcome. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-24, and 26 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims recite a “processing unit configured as a binary spatial partitioning…” which also finds support in the filed specification (e.g. pg. 7 lines 20-25 and pg. 16 lines 24-25). However after further consideration, it is not entirely clear what this means. From the literature (e.g. ¶0039 of Wyborn et al. US 2010/0045676 A1 along with col. 6 lines 44-49 of Glazer), it seems this refers to a method performed by the processor. Please check and update accordingly (for e.g. “processing unit configured to perform binary spatial partitioning…”). Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 1 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a passenger cabin” but later recites “a passenger cabin”. It is believed this should “the passenger cabin”. Even later, the claim recites “a vehicle cabin”. It is unclear whether this should read “the passenger cabin” for consistency. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claims 18 and 24 also objected to for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “combining light rays emitting from at least two light sources simultaneously,” (emphasis added), however, this can be interpreted as either simultaneously combining the light rays from the two sources, or this can also be interpreted as the simultaneous operation of the two light sources for combining the light rays. The specification (e.g. pg. 16 ‘Scenario B’) as well as claim 1, disclose simultaneous switching of the light sources. As such, it is not entirely clear if the aforementioned limitation refers to combining simultaneously or switching simultaneously as found elsewhere. For this reason, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Claims 19-23 depend on claim 18 above, and therefore include all of its limitations. For this reason, claims 19-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 16, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. US 2013/0070957 A1, in view of Learmonth et al. US 2017/0167919 A1, and in further view of Glazer US 10,424,106 B1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation that follows, Zhang is found to teach and/or suggest “A monitoring system for identifying objects in a passenger cabin of a motor vehicle [See fig. 1 (and corresponding text) which depicts an environment configured to capture multi-spectral or multi-bandwidth images of individuals in a vehicle. Figs. 2A-2B also show other objects, items and materials that can be distinguished] comprising: an imaging module operable to capture multiple spectral images [See capturing device 105 (fig. 1), such as a camera, for capturing images at varying wavelength bands (e.g. ¶0025)], the imaging module comprising a plurality of light sources operable to emit light rays [See illuminator 120 (fig. 1 and ¶0028). Although a single light source, the reflected light passes through a lens-filter combo (115 and 118) for enabling multi-spectral imaging of vehicle objects to be performed. Please see Learmonth below to address “a plurality of light sources”]; and a processing unit, the processing unit [See processing center in fig. 1] configured as a binary spatial partitioning [Zhang does not explicitly address “binary spatial partitioning”, however, given its BRI, Zhang’s processing employs subspace projection techniques (e.g. PCA - ¶0033) for reducing complex high-dimensional data into a more manageable number of parameters to facilitate data analysis. Thus, Zhang’s techniques are deemed analogous since they allow multi-spectral images to be analyzed for classifying materials and objects in a vehicle. Nonetheless, please refer to Glazer below for direct support], operable to simultaneously switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray [Although Zhang discloses light emissions from illuminator 120 in the visible/infrared wavelength bands (e.g. fig. 1 and ¶0028) which can be filtered for capturing multi-bandwidth images, Zhang does not explicitly address the foregoing features. For direct support, please refer to Learmonth below], such that the imaging module is operable to capture multiple spectral images of a passenger cabin, wherein the multiple spectral images comprise at least the combined light ray, wherein the processing unit differentiates the multiple spectral images into one of a material in a vehicle cabin and at least a part of a human.” [By Zhang’s subspace projection techniques, different objects, items, and materials within the vehicle can be distinguished from each other. See ¶0030-¶0033 with reference to fig. 2A. For e.g. a cell phone of a user or vinyl (which can be considered a material in a vehicle cabin) and a hand of an individual] Although Zhang’s teachings are deemed relevant, illuminator 120 is shown to be a single light source. In other words, it is not “a plurality of light sources” as claimed. Zhang also does not address a system that is “operable to simultaneously switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray” As such, the work of Learmonth from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest these features. In particular, Learmonth teaches and/or suggests “a plurality of light sources” [See for e.g. ¶0067, ¶0070, and ¶0072, i.e. a group of narrowband LEDs. Also please note the LED array in fig. 9C (¶0073).]. Learmonth also teaches and/or suggests “operable to simultaneously switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources, [See citations above (e.g. ¶0067, ¶0070) with respect to LEDs that emit different wavelengths of light being simultaneously switched on.], wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth [Same citations above. The plurality of Learmonth’s LEDs operate at different wavelengths. Also please note the LED switch table in fig. 13]; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray” [Given the BRI of a “combined light ray”, see for e.g. ¶0070 and ¶0072 which describe a light combiner and a combined light source, respectively.] Unlike Zhang, the objects being read/analyzed in Learmonth are not objects found in a vehicle (e.g. fig. 8), however, the techniques employed, particularly those related to the lighting arrangement, enable multispectral measurements for detection and analysis of said objects. As such, given Learmonth’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-spectral approaches of Zhang, to add Learmonth’s portable spectral reader as above, (e.g. col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. lines 1-7) that yields the required power to ensure a bright incident light for performing spectral measurements over a period of time (e.g. ¶0002). Lastly, although Zhang’s subspace projection techniques (e.g. PCA - ¶0033) are construed to be analogous to “binary spatial partitioning” given its BRI, the work of Glazer from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “and a processing unit, the processing unit configured as a binary spatial partitioning” [See for e.g. col. 6 lines 44-49 where binary spatial partitioning can be employed] Given Glazer’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-spectral approaches of both Zhang and Learmonth, to add the scalable computer image synthesis techniques of Glazer as above, that allow for minimizing artifacts and improving the aesthetic quality of an image without adding additional computational overhead (e.g. col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not address the features of claim 2. Learmonth on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processing unit is operable to switch on at least two of the plurality of light sources sequentially, to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources.” [See for e.g. ¶0049 (i.e. sequentially illuminating with band-limited sources) and ¶0068 (i.e. sequential switching of LEDs)]. The motivation for combining Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the multiple spectral images captured by the imaging module comprises at least a first point of reflectance within a first spectral bandwidth, and a second point of reflectance within a second spectral bandwidth.” [See fig. 2B which depicts the reflectance of different materials found in a vehicle interior. Also note ¶0030-¶0033 for support]
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising an analyzer module operable to determine an object in the multiple spectral images captured.” [See processing center in fig. 1 which performs the detection method shown in fig. 5]
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although the prior art do not explicitly recite a driver for driving the light sources, particularly those disclosed in Learmonth, it is respectfully submitted that in order to implement Learmonth’s LED switching operations (e.g. ¶0070), a driver(s) must be present. Thus, Learmonth implicitly teaches this feature.
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing unit comprises the analyzer module.” [See processing center in fig. 1]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1. As to the required hardware and software, please refer to ¶0052-¶0055 of Zhang.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Learmonth, in further view of Glazer, and in further view of Duffy et al. US 2021/0349038 A1, hereinafter referred to as Duffy.
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer do not appear to address the features of claim 15. Duffy on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processing unit is a host controller in electronic communication with the imaging module.” [See host controller in for e.g. ¶0038] Given Duffy’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined approaches of Zhang, Learmonth, and Glazer to add the multi-controller inspection system of Duffy as above, that provides an improved defect-inspection system employing multiple algorithms that benefit from different software and hardware computing environments (e.g. ¶0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 6-12, 17, 21-23, and 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. After careful consideration, the examiner finds the art of record do not reasonably address every feature in Claims 6-12, 17, and 21-23 when considering the claims as a whole. Also, as to Claim 26, Zhang allows for identifying objects in the passenger cabin (e.g. figs. 2A-2B), however, Zhang’s monitoring device is external to said vehicle (e.g. fig. 1). Therefore, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
6. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system of claim 5, wherein the analyzer module is operable to retrieve a reflectance curve prestored in a memory, and compare the multiple spectral image captured against the reflectance curve retrieved, to identify a pixel intensity difference between the reflectance curve prestored in the memory compared to the multiple spectral image captured.
7. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system of claim 6, wherein in response to the pixel intensity difference identified is a predetermined value, the analyzer module is operable to determine if the object in the multiple spectral image captured is an organ of the human.
8. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system of claim 7, wherein the organ of the human is a skin of the human.
9. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system of claim 5, wherein the analyzer module is operable to retrieve a reflectance curve prestored in a memory, sample at least one point of reflectance within a spectral range of the multiple spectral image captured, and compare the at least one point of reflectance sampled against a spectral range on the reflectance curve retrieved, the spectral range being a same spectral range as the spectral range sampled, to identify a type of object in the multiple spectral image captured by the imaging module.
10. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system according to claim 9, wherein the analyzer module is operable to sample the first point of reflectance and the second point of reflectance against the reflectance curve retrieved.
11. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system according to claim 3, wherein the first point of reflectance and the second point of reflectance is within a spectral range of the combined light ray.
12. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the combined light ray is within a near-infrared wavelength.
17. (Previously Presented) The monitoring system according to claim 6, wherein the reflectance curve comprises spectral measurements of different objects.
21. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 20, further comprising: identifying a pixel intensity difference between the at least one points of reflectance of the multiple spectral image captured against the at least two points of reflectance the reflectance curve retrieved; and determining the object is an organ of a human in response to the pixel intensity difference is a predetermined value.
22. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 21, wherein the organ of the human is a skin of the human.
23. (Previously Presented) The method of according to claim 18, further comprising: sampling at least one point of reflectance within a spectral range of the multiple spectral image captured; and comparing the at least one point of reflectance sampled against at least one point of the reflectance curve retrieved within a spectral range the same as the spectral range sampled, for identifying a type of object in the multiple spectral image captured.
26. (New) The monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring system is arranged in the motor vehicle to identify objects in the passenger cabin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights